Retrieve Things 3 projects with their id, name, status, and area. Optionally filter by a specific area to get only projects within it.
List Things 3 projects (id, name, status, area).
If area is given, only projects within that area are returned.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| area | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / area / titleRemoved value: -"Area"Input schema / titleRemoved value: -"list_projectsArguments"Output schema / properties / result / titleRemoved value: -"Result"Output schema / titleRemoved value: -"list_projectsOutput"Output schema / x-fastmcp-wrap-resultAdded value: +truev0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must stand alone. It discloses that the tool returns project fields and that the area parameter filters results, but it does not clarify whether `area` matches by name or ID, or surface edge cases such as empty results or matching behavior. The list nature implies a read operation but that is not explicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is deliberately concise: two sentences with the primary purpose and the conditional behavior. No filler, and the key information is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description is mostly complete. The main missing piece is the precise semantics of the `area` parameter, but the overall tool usage remains clear and the output schema likely handles return-value documentation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden. It does add meaning: providing `area` restricts results to projects within that area. However, it does not explain the expected format or source of the area value, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'List Things 3 projects' and enumerates the returned fields. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_todos and list_areas, even without naming them explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description establishes clear context: it lists projects and optionally filters by area. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the resource type and behavior make the intended use obvious among the siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.